Back

Woman the Hunter? Female foragers sometimes hunt, yet gendered divisions of labor are real

Venkataraman, V. V.; Hoffman, J.; Hames, R. B.; Stibbard-Hawkes, D. N. E.; Kramer, K.; Kelly, R.; Farquharson, K.; Hagen, E. H.; Hewlett, B. S.; DAvis, H. E.; Glowacki, L.; Jang, H.; Syne, K.; Starkweather, K.; Lew-Levy, S.

2024-02-27 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.02.23.581721 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Gendered divisions of labor are a feature of every known contemporary hunter-gatherer (forager) society. While gender roles are certainly flexible, and prominent and well-studied cases of female hunting do exist, it is more often men who hunt. A new study (Anderson et al., 2023) surveyed ethnographically known foragers and found that women hunt in 79% of foraging societies, with big-game hunting occurring in 33%. Based on this single type of labor, which is one among dozens performed in foraging societies, the authors question the existence of gendered division of labor altogether. As a diverse group of hunter-gatherer experts, we find that claims that foraging societies lack or have weak gendered divisions of labor are contradicted by empirical evidence. We conducted an in-depth examination of Anderson et al. (2023) data and methods, finding evidence of sample selection bias and numerous coding errors undermining the papers conclusions. Anderson et al. (2023) have started a useful dialogue to ameliorate the popular misconception that women never hunt. However, their analysis does not contradict the wide body of empirical evidence for gendered divisions of labor in foraging societies. Furthermore, a myopic focus on hunting diminishes the value of contributions that take different forms and downplays the trade-offs foragers of both sexes routinely face. We caution against ethnographic revisionism that projects Westernized conceptions of labor and its value onto foraging societies.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.